[kwlug-disc] OT: Another voip.ms troubleshooting question

[unsolicited]

On 12-09-09 08:48 AM, John Johnson wrote:
> On 2012-09-06 10:57, Jason Locklin wrote:
>> On Mon, 2012-08-27 at 11:07 -0400, unsolicited wrote:
>>> >  I have to disagree. VoIP is VoIP. Private (inter)network, or no. That
>>> >  Roger's can then do funny things to shape the traffic and provide it
>>> >  better service and QoS over its regular internet offerings
>>> >  (uncompetitive advantage) ...
>> Okay, it's technically VoIP in that it uses VoIP technology, but it's
>> better to think of it as "digital phone service over cable"
> Agree.
>>   there is a grey area and it's best not to confuse the issue by
>> calling Rogers Home Phone VoIP.
> Agree.
>
> FWIW: I am speaking as a "techie" and not as a shill for Rogers.
>
> Part of the "uncompetitive advantage" unsolicited speaks of is a the
> demand of low latency on IP added by VoIP. IP was not originally
> designed for low latency, full duplex operation at any bit rate. VoIP
> added this requirement as well as "shaping" for QoS. That Rogers (and
> other cable providers) can offer a VoIP-like service speaks to efforts
> to meet this low latency demand with technologies not available on the
> rest of the intertubes.

Nope, that's a completely wrong interpretation of uncompetitive advantage.

Rogers does not offer an equal playing field across the wire, preferring 
it's own private traffic over my wire, and in fact deliberately 
deteriorating internet traffic. No VoIP traffic travelling over its 
internet service has a prayer of competing on an equal traffic bandwidth 
or speed footing with it's own private service.

Yet it's all my own wire and paid for internet service. And I don't pay 
for shaped and diminished traffic, but it's what I get.

Beyond VoIP, consider, for example, Netflix.